Kobe's 81 point game was way more impressive than his 62 in 3 to me, even though it was against a far worse team. That's because in the 81 point game, Kobe was making buckets, and was legitimately on fire. In the 62 point game, he had more FT's as the entire Maverick team through 3 quarters (25 vs. 21) and had 17 or 18 FT's in the third quarter alone. That's just obscene.

I like when guys make buckets, which is why Melo's 33 point quarter recently is way more impressive than Kobe's 30 point third quarter in that Mavs game.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. I wasn't blown away by that game as I was by the 81 points and even some of his other 50 and 60 point games.

Yes. It was 62 in 3 quarters but it was more impressive than 81 or 100 in 4 quarters. I'm just pointing out that people can't make a baseless statement like "the one which yields the most points is the best performance"...if Kobe played in the 4th quarter, naturally his point total would be greater than 62. The Mavs simply had no answer for him that night, he just kept coming at them and outscored them all by himself. Also, he did it on 31 attempts as opposed to 46 attempts against the weak Raptors defense...

They won by 22 points. 169 to 147. Did ANYONE play defense back then at all? LOL

Few things I found interesting:
One guy had 20 assists.
Wilt had 25 rebounds.
Knicks had 3 guys take 22 or more shots.
4,000 people were at the game
The lowest scoring quarter for Philadelphia was 2nd quarter with 37 points. Highest: 46

Oki thanks, I was just wondering because when we're talking about what's most impressive we also might want to look at the situation...were they scoring on a weak defense just for the hell of it, or was it actually a close game. But looks like Wilt's team won pretty handily.

Yes. It was 62 in 3 quarters but it was more impressive than 81 or 100 in 4 quarters. I'm just pointing out that people can't make a baseless statement like "the one which yields the most points is the best performance"...if Kobe played in the 4th quarter, naturally his point total would be greater than 62. The Mavs simply had no answer for him that night, he just kept coming at them and outscored them all by himself. Also, he did it on 31 attempts as opposed to 46 attempts against the weak Raptors defense...

That is just your bias talking. Clearly the 100 point performance is way beter than a 62 point performance. Even if he had played 4 Q's it would have been no more than 82-83 points. That is still nto as impressive as 100. Actually not even close.

t-macs final 35 seconds are impressive but they are lost in the fact that he was 12-29 (or 7- 24 before the last 35 seconds) overall that night and had missed 8 3 pointers until then, shooting 1-9 on the night from behind the arc for the night...

so for me it's wilt's 100 first then kobe's 62 then t-macs

of kobes 2 big nights the 81 is greater, it was acheived in a game where the lakers were down and needed some serious scoring... the mavs just threw in the towel the night kobe scored the 62

Kobe's 81 point game was way more impressive than his 62 in 3 to me, even though it was against a far worse team. That's because in the 81 point game, Kobe was making buckets, and was legitimately on fire. In the 62 point game, he had more FT's as the entire Maverick team through 3 quarters (25 vs. 21) and had 17 or 18 FT's in the third quarter alone. That's just obscene.

I like when guys make buckets, which is why Melo's 33 point quarter recently is way more impressive than Kobe's 30 point third quarter in that Mavs game.

Nobody cares about 81. We're talking about 62 through 3, 100, and 13 in 35. Kobe's 62 through 3 was much more impressive than Melo's 33 in the 3rd.

WTF? That's not true at all. The only reason his "average" was 21 points per quarter is because of his 30 point third quarter, which was largely the result of an absurd amount of FT's (he had 17 or 18 FTA in the third). There's no way that you can say he would have had a 21 point 4th quarter. I do think he would have probably had 73-77 points, however. 83 is stretching it.

Of course it's true. The reason for this is simple division.

Because of his 30 points in the 3rd quarter, we can assume (if we wanted to) that he could have scored even more than 30 in the 4th.

Maybe you don't understand. The goal of basketball is to win the game. Not make history. Look at the Nuggets. We made history with the highest scoring game in history. What happened? We lost. History isn't everything. Jackson is trash? How many teams have you coached to a championship? Thought so.

More people will remember a scoring record than one meaningless regular season game.

If someone has a chance to score 90+ without hurting his team's chances of winning, he should go for it.

Without looking it up, does anyone actually remember the score of the Mavs/Lakers game? Does anyone care? No.

Does everyone remember how many points he scored and in how many quarters of play it took him? Yes.

Ok so based on the OP's question 100>62>13. Wilts feat is something that nobody can ever claim, and is the single greatest scoring feat ever recorded. You can say all you want about the compertition that Wilt faced, but you can't take away the 100 points he scored. And how do people get the formula that it is 63 points? Just wonder because last time i checked 100 points is still 100 points even if it was scored on 100 FGA.

100 points in the 60s is roughly 63 in the 00s.

You also need to realize that it's much more impressive to score 60+ as a 6'6" SG whose game is based on making difficult jumpers than it is for a 7'1" 300+ lb. center to go over the backs of shorter and weaker players.